Extended limitation in excise demands fails where classification lists disclosed the relevant facts and no suppression or intent to evade duty was shown.

Where manufacturing facts and nil-rate clearance of hard waste were disclosed in approved classification lists, the demand could not be extended beyond the normal limitation period absent suppression or intent to evade duty. The Department's awareness, coupled with the opportunity to verify the position at the approval stage, defeated invocation of the extended period. The demand raised beyond the normal period was therefore time-barred in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty on hard waste was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The appellant had disclosed in the classification lists that hard waste arising in the course of manufacture of double or multifold yarn was being cleared at nil rate of duty, and those lists had been approved by the proper officers. The Department was therefore aware that single yarn was captively consumed in the manufacture of double or multifold yarn, and any doubt could have been verified at the stage of approval itself. In these circumstances, the facts did not justify an of suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, and the demand raised beyond the normal period could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred, and the extended period of limitation was not invocable, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant manufacturing facts and nil-rate clearance were disclosed in approved classification lists, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression or intent to evade duty.

---